[D] LotV Economy Discussion - Page 12

On November 11 2014 08:24 Thieving Magpie wrote:


Nexus Wars fo'life ya'll

On November 11 2014 09:04 Hider wrote:


Nexus wars doesn't have multitasking. Give me a game where players are spread out with a large defenders advantage, and micro and multitasking has a much higher skill cap.

A less efficient, more bases, and slower game all go against the central goal of making the game more approachable, quicker, and more casual friendly. I am absolutely not saying that decreased efficiency or different economic changes are a bad idea or not viable, I am just pointing out that they need to occur alongside the necessity of creating a more approachable game.

On November 11 2014 09:50 Hungry Cerberus wrote:
I don't want to incur the wrath of the internet but I feel it is necessary to consider some of the other concerns that Blizzard is facing with a game like Starcraft. While it obvious for all of us that we want a game that creates the best gameplay, Blizzard is forced to consider how to meet the simultaneous goal of generating the most amount of players (revenue). I think it is obvious that almost every major decision they have made for LotV is to increase the player base (stand alone game, archon mode, bnet tournaments, tons of changes to generate hype). The economic changes seem no different to me.

Time
By having more workers at the start you decrease the amount of time spent in the early low key periods of the game. For a large percentage of players (obviously not all) time matters. A perfect example of their recent thinking is Hearthstone and Heroes of the Storm. Both games allow for matches that are quite short. This has myriad advantages: it is less intimidating, the losses feel less punishing, and it can trick you as a player into thinking "just one more quick game". Comparing Heroes of the Storm to Dota 2 really made me aware of how much I appreciate the feeling that a game is just a short span of time. Of course objectively I know a game can reach over an hour in length, but in many cases perception beats reality. Even the lower minerals per base seems like an attempt to push the game along. Forcing players to decide that they must attack soon or expand, pushing the total game time even lower, and reducing turtling and boring static situations with new units and harassment options.

Approachable
As much as know one wants to admit it, a game has to be accessible to a huge potential audience to be worth the investment of resources. Starcraft is insanely unforgiving as a game, where one small mistake can lead to a loss. One of the most frustrating ways to loose is to early rushes. To spend several minutes building up a base and then dying without having a chance to really get rolling is an awful feeling. It is enough for many players, such as myself, to find queuing up a nerve racking and often frustrating experience. The economy changes create a situation that is similar to WC3 where you can start building a base instantly. Now if you die inside the first few minutes you can pretty much guarantee you have some army units, which makes the loss feel that much more satisfying as you get to at least fight for your life.

The Problem with Reduced Efficiency
Now why can't they do all those other things and decrease base mining efficiency. Well some of these goals of decreased efficiency go against the ideas I have mentioned above. If they change the economy in the style presented by OP how does that help them achieve their goals of a wider player base? A less efficient, more bases, and slower game all go against the central goal of making the game more approachable, quicker, and more casual friendly. I am absolutely not saying that decreased efficiency or different economic changes are a bad idea or not viable, I am just pointing out that they need to occur alongside the necessity of creating a more approachable game.

I know Blizzard wants to create the best game possible and we all want to highest skill ceiling possible but to consider any changes and ignore Blizzards other very reasonable goals is living outside of reality. Whatever suggestions you make to this thread should carefully consider the entire player base, potential and current. If your changes don't help in some way to make the game more approachable/casual friendly than don't ever expect to see them happen and don't be mad at Blizzard when they don't.

On November 11 2014 10:43 iamcaustic wrote:

1. Regarding time, mining out bases does not necessarily result in shorter games. Ultimately, player perception is going to be based on their personal experience, and for players that know expanding is a thing (basically everyone above the lowest group of Bronze league) there is little difference made in this regard.

2. Regarding approachability, you seem to be neglecting the notion that casual players tend to gravitate toward more money-oriented maps, as it reduces the amount of things they need to worry about in the game. This is why the map Big Game Hunters was so incredibly popular in Brood War, alongside Smallest Map style games (it was basically 1 base per player, but infinite resources on a tiny map size; it was all about making stuff and getting into battles right away without worrying about things like expanding). In this regard, faster expanding is actually a historical barrier to approachability. The OP makes no comment on the changes to worker counts, as it's yet to be seen how that might impact the game. The reduced resource totals per base, however, is counter-intuitive to your point.

3. Regarding reduced efficiency, it does not result in a slower game; I'm not sure where you got this idea from. Reduced efficiency provides a positive incentive for players to expand (greater income per minute per same worker count), without punishing casual players who will find themselves mining out much faster with Blizzard's proposal. Assuming a mineral income of 720 minerals per minute (pretty standard) per base, in HotS you'd expect to mine out a base in ~16.5 minutes, while in LotV you'll see bases mining out at ~11 minutes (which is basically what we saw in the showmatches; Terrans mined out by 8 minutes with efficient MULE drops). I've seen plenty of new players only starting to expand at around the 10 minute mark. This puts stress on new players lest they secure another expansion faster.

On the competitive side, I've had pros echo the sentiments in the OP. They want clear incentives to expand beyond a 3 base saturation (i.e. 3 active mining bases) and Blizzard's current implementation does not provide it. Many people are also worried the combination of reduced resources and more starting workers will reduce the strategic depth of the early game to favour a faster economy game over 1 base aggressive opportunities. Scarlett is one of the more prominent individuals with this concern.

On November 11 2014 13:45 pure.Wasted wrote:


Saw this post on Reddit, figured it'd be better to discuss it here.

I must admit to some confusion. Isn't forced 6 bases the "BW way"? And isn't the OP all about how to make SC2 more like BW and less like WOL?

HOTS certainly made Protoss more mobile, and it's no surprise every single Protoss MU became more interesting as a result. The best PvTs of the year came at the height of Chargelot/Templar which is the most mobile Protoss comp. I would certainly hope that's the way LOTV progresses...

On November 11 2014 13:45 pure.Wasted wrote:


Saw this post on Reddit, figured it'd be better to discuss it here.

I must admit to some confusion. Isn't forced 6 bases the "BW way"? And isn't the OP all about how to make SC2 more like BW and less like WOL?

HOTS certainly made Protoss more mobile, and it's no surprise every single Protoss MU became more interesting as a result. The best PvTs of the year came at the height of Chargelot/Templar which is the most mobile Protoss comp. I would certainly hope that's the way LOTV progresses...